Giuliani is reportedly preparing a 50-page rebuttal for a Mueller-report nobody has even seen yet.

[DetlefK]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/mitch-mcconnell-warning-parts-mueller-report-leaked-barr-works-redactions/

As the Wall Street Journal notes, all of Washington and, indeed the country, awaits the release of Attorney General Bill Barr’s reviewed and redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump.

According to the report, attorneys for the president are at the same time preparing a rebuttal, whittling down a 140 pages long document that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani indicated would come in at approximately 50 pages.

What are the odds that the rebuttal will be out BEFORE the report?

[ck4829]

1. Wait. Why would Giuliani need to make a rebuttal of something that "TOTALLY EXONERATES" Trump?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. My first thought reading this exactly

[JHB]

16. Good point. Hey Donnie! Rudy's saying you don't know what you're talking about!

And billing you for it!

[coti]

39. Why would Giuliani have access to an unredacted copy of the report when the American public doesn't?

[spanone]

2. They are stealing our democracy right out from under us...

I'm guessing the White House has had the report for three weeks now.

[scrutineer]

8. The White House had the report within minutes of its release

as soon as William Barr's limo could wind its way thru the Friday DC traffic.

Zero probability that is not correct.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. +1

[erronis]

30. Are you sure dump on AF1 wasn't dictating to Barr-bee for that "summary"

And Hope Hicks wasn't working on the rebuttal - to be aired on the Nazionalized TV.

[Yonnie3]

3. Rebuttal?

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2019, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Why on earth would he need to rebut the "exoneration?"

I get dizzy sometimes.


Apparently I need to add this.

[Cracklin Charlie]

7. Exhausting, ain't it?

They can’t see past the end of their noses.

[Igel]

17. Because the decision not to indict was but one part of it.

Remember, the Barr report was a summary of the principal findings. That's what he said he'd provide ahead of time; that's what it billed itself as. Nothing more. The only people who billed it as a complete summary were those who needed it to be a complete summary so they could claim status as victor or victim.

Now, Mueller may have toplined certain conclusions, but ultimately what was billed as "principal" was partly political in nature, since for the previous 2 years much of the rhetoric was "collusion" (veering into conspiracy) and for much of the last year to 18 months "obstruction". Lest this seem like it's all on Barr, most people clamoring followed their calls for full disclosure by referencing either collusion or obstruction or both. Most people were agreed on what needed to be seen initially.

If the report were to indicate that on two occasions low-level classified information from a presidential briefing provided before inauguration was leaked and provided to a staffer who gave it to a Russian colleague who also has ties to the Kremlin, that wouldn't be a principal finding. It's a detail.

If it's found that one some occasion at which Trump's then #3 was at the same reception with Sessions and the #3 told Sessions, "You know, I think Trump would really like it if you could just make this entire problem go waay," that would be in the "obstruction of justice" pile o' crap and would need to be considered, even if there was no clear link that Trump had directed this in a specific way with "corrupt mind." (I mean, how many people under investigation *actually* don't want the entire mess to go away? Even if you want the investigation to clear you, you'd still rather that the entire mess went away.)

But I could see how a rebuttal for either might be in order, if that level of detail were known. And since this was billed as a counterintelligence document officially intended primarily for establishing criminal wrong-doing in a way that serves primarily political ends, claims to rectitude merely strike me as reference to spinal configuration, with one side claiming to have better posturing than the other. In criminal court the first presenter is the prosecution; but in the court of public opinion, by the time the prosecution's half-way through it's case the jury's often decided on the punishment and might well have carried it out.

Also note that the only time "exoneration" was used in any form was in quoting Mueller as saying that the report did *not* exonerate Trump in obstruction of justice charges. The only reason it spread to "exoneration" for the conspiracy/coordination was by contrast and inference. If he's *not* exonerated for charge #2 because no decision was made as to indictment, but also intentionally not indicted for charge #1, then he must have been exonerated for #1. That's not how it works, but both sides fell for the likely accidental implicature. It's just that in the first case the non-indictment was a conscious decision based on prosecutor/grand-jury findings and evaluation; in the second case non-indictment was the default based on presumption of innocence and uncertainty over probable cause.

It's not helpful to repeat the same false conclusion.

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump in any non-technical sense from conspiracy; he merely said "no indictment", not that he wasn't blameworthy or was actually clear of any wrongdoing. "Insufficient or no findings" doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist somewhere. It seems he looked far and wide so it's fairly unlikely--I'd note that he knows more than reporters with axes to grind based on their beliefs and far less complete information--but he and his are not perfect. I suspect he did more than "good enough," though, and acted in good faith even though some of those who worked with individual trees or areas of underbrush may not see the entire forest ecosystem. As for legal exoneration, since Trump hadn't been convicted his guilt couldn't be overturned and therefore under criminal law terminology he wasn't exonerated, either.

[ck4829]

23. I know, right?

[Mike Nelson]

4. I'm sure...

… Trump's team has had all the info on himself for months - maybe even years - due to briefings from Mueller, Rosenstein, Whittaker and Barr. They would know exactly what is in the report. When Trump says he doesn't read/have the report, he means the final draft - and he'd never read the whole thing, in any case.

[Takket]

36. Well they also have all the info because drumpf is the perpetrator

He knows what is in the report because he committed the crimes Mueller has been investigating.

[democratisphere]

5. The WH has had the Mueller Report before Barr released his 4 page dissertation.

Rudy will just pile on more BS.

[Cracklin Charlie]

6. They could only do that if they knew what the report will say.

They can only know what it will say if they knew what crimes were committed.

They are too dumb to be playing these games.

Dumb Game of Thrones

[scarytomcat]

10. LET US SEE THE REPORT IN FULL

NOW!!!

[ck4829]

24. +1

[Iliyah]

9. He has seen it.

A lot of Republicans have seen it. That is why they support Barr.

Although I read a title wherein McTurtle thinks leaks of Mueller's report is forthcoming. Why?

I think the Republicans are going to leak it. But will they leak the damaging parts or BS coverup parts.

[Botany]

11. I bet this is in the Mueller Report

DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016

A joint intelligence bulletin (JIB) has been issued by the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation to state and local authorities regarding Russian hacking activities during the 2016 presidential election. While the bulletin contains no new technical information, it is the first official report to confirm that the Russian reconnaissance and hacking efforts in advance of the election went well beyond the 21 states confirmed in previous reports.

(Any chance that the Mueller Report covers this?)

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/dhs-fbi-say-election-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/

[TruckFump]

12. Maybe he just plagiarized Barr's 19-page letter...

...in REALLY BIG print?

[ck4829]

25. LOL

[jcgoldie]

15. With Rudy's track record of foot in mouthism...

... his "rebuttal" is likely to be more damaging to Trump than the actual Mueller report.

[cbdo2007]

19. Lol, I was about to post theexact same thing..

Maybe AG Barr needs to start writing a rebuttal for Guilianis rebuttal.

[shockey80]

18. I believe Rudy the Penguin has covered up for Trump for decades.

Rudy was a prosecutor and mayor in New York for many years as Trump built his criminal enterprise.

The news media should do a big investigation into their decades long relationship. There is a reason Rudy is acting so crazy in his defense of Trump.

[uponit7771]

20. Rudy is still stupid slow mentally but even then who cares what's in the report that's not a crime?!

We're not interested if Trump likes to have sex with animals or if Melanie doesn't like men or does like men but only if her husband watches.

WHO CARES !?!!?

We care about the crimes, not their stupid.

[Arazi]

21. The WH has seen it. Barr is obviously #TrumpsPoodle

[Mc Mike]

22. Sure to be an exhibition of some top notch lawyerin.

[at140]

26. LOL like critique of a movie before

Seeing it lol.

[Ilsa]

27. I'm looking forward to him revealing a crime

we didn't know about as he tries to justify it.

[former9thward]

28. If you are a defense lawyer you don't have to see the report to prepare a rebuttal.

I don't know if Giuliani has seen the report or not. But defense lawyers know all the witnesses and what they said. They know anything negative that was said. So they can produce a rebuttal without seeing word for word what Mueller's team wrote.

[DetlefK]

34. But there has been no discovery here. Giuliani doesn't know what Mueller knows.

Giuliani doesn't know which witness-statements and which documents his report is based on. He doesn't even know which charges were recommended or not recommended.

[former9thward]

38. I bellieve he does.

Mueller and his team communicated with the Trump team as well as other defense lawyers. These investigations do not operate in a vacuum. Mueller asked the WH for countless documents and they were provided. Document production, just like witness testimony, is never a one way street.

[UTUSN]

29. That ought to be a free Association event!1

[Blue Owl]

31. C'mon Rudy, start blabbing...

Don't hold back, now...

[rusty fender]

32. All he has to write is

“Truth isn’t truth!”

[struggle4progress]

33. "It will clearly say Trump is innocent, after we are done translating and explaining it"

[Takket]

35. Why is there a rebuttal if the report exonerates him???

[smirkymonkey]

37. It's Rudy.

Do we need to even ask why anymore?